http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/ Parke Place - en Serendipity 1.4.1 - http://www.s9y.org/ Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:59:11 GMT http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/templates/default/img/s9y_banner_small.png http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/ 100 21 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/16#c27 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/16#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=16 nospam@example.com (Tom) Of course the Journal doesn't want to acknowledge the hard work of the ACLU in successfully stopping this thing. After all, the last thing Hank or the rest of the Arcata mafia want is to start treating Greg Allen and other civil liberties advocates like human beings with credibility. It's not as if they haven't been on the front page of the Times-Standard about 4 times in the last month or anything... Fri, 11 Sep 2009 23:42:00 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/16#c27 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/16#c26 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/16#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=16 nospam@example.com (Ryan Burns) Thanks for that additional info. You make some good points. Sat, 05 Sep 2009 15:55:59 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/16#c26 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/15#c25 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/15#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=15 nospam@example.com (Darus) Well put. I'll be interested to see the council's response. Sun, 02 Aug 2009 23:24:33 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/15#c25 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/14#c24 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/14#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=14 nospam@example.com (Parke Bostrom) I believe Gpa Hart's comment is in reference to the following section of the ordinance: § 150.030.053 CIVIL ACTIONS; PRIVATE PARTIES Any neighbor or member of the community who experiences adverse effects associated with excess emergency response calls to any residential unit regulated by this chapter is declared to be damaged thereby. (A) For purposes of this section, “excess emergency response calls” are the greater of five calls for service for one address or one call for service per each five-unit/room increment in any 12 month period requiring response by any fire or police agency in the City limits. (B) Any and each such affected party may institute a civil action against the landlord. Damages shall include the actual damages, costs, attorney’s fees and a civil penalty of up to $500 in addition thereto. (C) Nothing in this provision shall be construed to limit any other right or remedy otherwise available in law or equity to any affected person, nor shall this provision in any way limit the city’s right to enforcement under any other provision of this code, nor shall it create a duty or obligation on the part of the city. When I first read this section I was concerned, and I asked Councilman Glass's Ad Hoc Housing Task Force about the section. I was give the following explanation. Today (i.e., pre-ordinance), when neighbors suffer "adverse effects", they can sue landlords for damages. A judge will look at the claim and evaluate whether or not there are really adverse effects. If, in the judge's opinion, there are no "adverse effects", the judge will throw the case out. In a specific case, in Eureka, there were adverse effects PLUS 52 police calls within a year. And a judge was not certain whether or not 52 police calls within a year was a sufficient level to merit damages. So the limit of 5 police calls serves as a guide to judges when deciding whether or not cases have merit. Put another why, the section is not saying that 5 calls to the police are an "adverse effect". The section is saying when there are adverse effects (in the opinion of the judge) PLUS 5 calls to the police, then the penalties in the ordinance apply. I believe one member of the Ad-Hoc Task Force suggested that this section of the ordinance will also actually make it easier for a landlord to get an eviction order from a judge. The landlord can say: "Look, there have been 4 police calls. There have been adverse effects on neighbors. And this city ordinance says that eviction is merited in these circumstances." So, to summarize: I, too, was concerned when I first read this section of the ordinance. And the above is the explanation that was provided to me. As you can probably tell from my repetition of the explanation here, I am still somewhat confused about the exact mechanics of the section, possibly because this section may implicitly reference other sections of the law that define "adverse effects" and the penalties for not correcting them. Fri, 31 Jul 2009 14:55:31 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/14#c24 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/14#c23 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/14#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=14 nospam@example.com (Gpa Hart) Here is my first thought.....how about the little old lady next door that files 5 complaints about a neighbor acting strange or looking suspicious.....BUT is black.... gay....or some bias. And then the property owner having to pay $500 for not fixing the problem. Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:12:54 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/14#c23 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/12#c21 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/12#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=12 nospam@example.com (Parke Bostrom) I have followed up on David Johnson's comment with Chairman Vaughn. Vaughn denies that he requested that the CRP review the matter. I may have more details in a few days. Tue, 21 Jul 2009 19:54:48 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/12#c21 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/12#c20 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/12#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=12 nospam@example.com (David Johnson) From accounts I have seen, it was Mr. Vaughn who submitted the request to review to the CRP. He also sent his lawyer to represent him. But now he will not abide by the decision of the body he himself requested make a decision. it seems to me that he is "arbitrage shopping." See "http://www.examiner.com/x-16872-LA-Republican-Examiner~y2009m7d11-State-party-makes-determination-regarding-county-leadership-dispute". Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:15:13 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/12#c20 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#c16 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=2 nospam@example.com (Parke Bostrom) This entry keeps getting comment spam, so I am disabling comments. Email me at parke.bostrom@gmail.com if you wish to comment. Tue, 05 May 2009 08:22:56 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#c16 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#c6 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=4 nospam@example.com (Parke Bostrom) Crnich has done much good, no doubt about it. But at the same time, she is is opposed to even allowing the public to consider hand counting. Time will tell whether or not I have taken over where Dave Berman left off. I am not a member of the Voter Confidence Committee, although at present I do attend their meetings and happily work with them on occasion. I have not endorsed hand counting, although I think it is certainly worthy of consideration. Mostly I am just a big fan of good, transparent public decision making process. I oppose government secrets. Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:51:33 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#c6 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#c4 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=4 nospam@example.com (Tom Courbat) Wow, I thought Crnich had become one of the few "good guys", but this seems to indicate otherwise. It is a shame that there has to be such negative relations between Election Integrity folks and Registrars of Voters. I commend you on your work. Have you essentially taken over where Dave Berman left off, or are you and your group totally unrelated (not in the biblical sense!) to Dave's efforts? Tom Courbat SAVE R VOTE Riverside County, CA Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:41:24 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#c4 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#c3 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=4 nospam@example.com (Parke Bostrom) I have learned that a contract to purchase the replacement machines may still need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors and have updated my comments appropriately. Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:46:16 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/4#c3 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#c2 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=2 nospam@example.com (Parke Bostrom) The HEAC did discuss vote buying/vote coercion. The HEAC's consensus, as I remember it, is that vote coercion via vote-by-mail is a much bigger threat than coercion via ballot marking. Pattern voting seems to me to be a type of ballot marking. The ETP would allow vote buying/vote coercion via other ballot means in addition to pattern voting. For example, I could "mark" my ballot by just filling the left half of a voting oval, or just the right half. Pattern voting via over voting in a specific race would also allow many additional combinations. With all three of these methods, however, the evidence would be in plain sight once the ballot images were published. I believe this is why the HEAC concluded that vote by mail was the bigger threat. Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:05:18 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#c2 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#c1 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#comments http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/wfwcomment.php?cid=2 nospam@example.com (Neal McBurnett) Another concern is "pattern voting", discussed e.g. at http://scantegrity.org/blog/2008/06/16/how-secret-is-your-secret-ballot-part-1-of-3-pattern-voting/ Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:55:37 -0700 http://parke.dreamhosters.com/s9y/a/2#c1